Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

[Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>]

At 01:45 AM 4/3/2001, DPF wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 12:01:37 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>The media makes no effort to probe deeper, such as to explain
> >whether a given position is reasonable or whether a given speaker has any
> >meaningful support.
>
>This is certainly true for some media.  But I believe the degree and
>intensity of coverage is well beyond what one would expect for a body
>such as ICANN.

I suggest you learn more about current trends and problems in reporting.

Columbia Journalism Review is the US "dean" of such oversight, but there 
are other sources.


> >Critical comments did not come from "Congress".  They came from a few
> >elected officials in Congress.
>
>Those officials were generally the Chairs and ranking opposition
>members of the committees that deal with issues pertaining to ICANN so
>it is not just a couple of rogue members of Congress but the senior
>members in the telecommunications area.

That makes their ignorance and silliness all the more offensive, but does 
not make it less ignorant or silly.

And it is interesting that you are willing to accept comments "from 
authority" when it agrees with your criticisms, but not when it doesn't.


> >Elected officials do quite a lot of posturing for their constituency.  It's
> >difficult to take a few of their indignant outcries as anything serious,
> >both given how superficial their knowledge is and how little they do with
> >their supposed concern.
>
>Some is posturing but if one really wants to ignore the increasing
>frequency of negative comments from senior representatives it is at
>your own peril.

Increasing frequency?  Not really.  They have been showing periodic 
involvement.

If you mean that there were 2 hearings this time and only 1 before, yeah, I 
suppose that shows greater interest.  That's to be expected as losers of 
the supposed domain name lottery seek every avenue for disrupting things 
further.


> >And then we have your citing the tiny number of people who go to ICANN
> >meetings "with absolutely no vested interests".  It might be interesting to
> >discover who these people are, since there are so few people at the
> >meetings, and therefore almost no one likely to be there with no vested
> >interest.
>
>A large contingent of NZers went to the Melbourne meeting as it was so
>close by.  All are involved with ISOCNZ and hence have a potential
>vested interest with regard to cctld issues but as ICANN needs the
>cctlds far more than they need ICANN there is no real vested interest.

Huh?  The cctld constituency is very highly vested.

For nearly two years they have rather firmly and very explicitly sought to 
delay the introduction of new TLDs.  (I got kicked out of a RIPE ccTLD 
meeting in Scotland for raising the perspective that they were being 
counterproductive.)


>They all posted lengthy reports (4+ pages) of their experiences and
>none of them were flattering towards ICANN.  Again you can close your
>eyes and pretend they also do not count but I think we should be
>concerned that people are coming away with such negative perceptions.

Concerned, of course.

The pervasive lack of maturity among participants in Melbourne was 
striking.  Overall the tone from the floor was the same as watching a 
child's tantrum.  No sense of the practical constraints on processes such 
as ICANN, and no sense of shared responsibility for making things 
works.  Just constant, childish outbursts.

Very concerned, indeed.


> >>...I get frustrated at what appears to be a blinkered view
> >>that all criticism is wrong...
> >
> >It is facinating you would make such a statement, since there is no one who
> >has ever expressed such blinkered view.
>
>No ever says it explicitly but when over a period of several months
>the vast majority of posts from certain individuals are attacking
>those who are criticising ICANN, then they get seen mainly as apologists.

It is difficult to do much about a failure to look at the merits of 
postings carefully.

However one small effort:  as you look at the pattern of postings that you 
assess to be "apologist" you might equally look at the pattern of postings 
they respond to.

First ask whether the poster has been showing a pattern of sniping at ICANN.

Then consider carefully the practical aspects of their criticisms.  Not 
just whether there is some surface credibility to the criticism, but 
whether it reflects core, practical concerns, balanced against core, 
practical constraints.

In other words, do they reflect a balanced effort to negotiate through 
difficult, practical waters or are they just idealistic, rigid and/or 
self-centered demands from a single perspective?

Does the speaker seem to be more interested in their own public platform 
than in ICANN succeeding?

And so on...


>I was on the Council of ISOCNZ during a period when it was very
>unpopular.  I found that acknowledging the areas where performance has
>been less than adequate does a lot for one's credibility.

In a serious dialogue, with serious participants, you are entirely 
correct.  We are not in such a situation.  The public dialogue has been 
taken over by a a combination of interest groups that have created a 
dynamic which entirely stifles serious discussion.

That is the message in 
<http://brandenburg.com/presentations/Level-10-routing/sld009.htm>.  Only 
the group at the bottom of the list under Opposition is interested in 
serious discussion and they are drowned out by the mass of others higher on 
the list.


>Debating the issues people raise rather than attacking them for raising it 
>does likewise.

Tried it.  At length.

Doesn't work.  Sorry.


> >The real difficulty is that hyperbole, personal posturing, personal
> >attacks, and focus on irrelevant or incorrect details has made it
> >impossible to conduct serious, public discussion about serious, practical
> >improvements.
>
>I disagree.  There are some who certainly are distractions but I find
>a killfile does a lot to keep it manageable.

Killfiles are useful in dealing with crazies, but not with those who are 
more intelligent and more insidious in their agendas.


>I think some of the
>analysis and discussion in wg-review was excellent.  It then lost it's
>way a bit but that was partially due to the fact the terms of
>reference kept changing.

As my cited slide shows, yes there are some serious participants 
around.  They have no useful effect because the forces surrounding their 
comments combine to drown them out.

One item I left off the list is the difficulty of managing open group 
processes.  It often requires some special skills and they are rare.


>...I have seen enough now to know that one could improve
>things with some simple steps.

"For every complex problem, there is a simple solution.  And it is 
wrong."  H.L. Mencken


> >No.  What is at issue is a contract.  Contracts pertain to substantive
> >matters, and substantive matters, well... matter.  But what is at issue is
> >a contract.
>
>But ICANN is not a for profit corporation where the aim is to act in
>the best interests of the corporation.  ICANN is meant to act in the
>best interest of the internet community and this involves meaningful
>consultation with it.  Last minute changes with no input do not
>further these aims.

Well, this is a good example of the problem with a narrow focus in looking 
at practical matters.  In particular it reflects a failure to consider that 
Verisign IS a business and they are running a critical infrastructure 
service, and they have no incentive to let the matter linger on 
endlessly.  They already had a contract, remember.

"The best interests of the Internet" are served better by improvements in 
contracts with operators than by catering to a tiny group of constantly 
plaintive observers.  If the quality of participation by the observers had 
a more useful history, comments about process might have some legitimacy, 
but so far this group has largely squandered its platform.


>I judge off what I have seen here.  I will be pleasantly surprised
>when I see evidence to the contrary,  I would love to see from you an
>analysis of where ICANN could do better.

Interesting that you do no seem inclined to DISMISS those who show a 
constant pattern of only criticizing, demanding from them that they provide 
some analysis of where ICANN has done well...


> >>Verisign however it seems were never even asked as part of the
> >>negotiations for an extension.
> >
> >1.  How do you know that?
>
>Because the negotiators made it very clear they would not do so.
>Their position was the same as Verisigns.

You have no basis for such a claim, since you were not in the discussions 
and they have made no public statements supporting your assertions.


> >2.  You are wrong.  The question was put to them, explicitly, during public
> >exchanges in Melbourne and they declined.
>
>Oh please.  I mean a serious request as part of the negotiations from
>those who did the negotiations.

You do not know what was said, requested or demanded.  The fact that you 
are so firm in making assertion for which you have no objective basis 
demonstrates undermines your claim about careful and serious discussion.


> >That would require that Verisign be desparate to change the status
> >quo.  Not just interested or willing, but absolutely desparate.  What is
> >your basis for believing that retaining the current contract is such a
> >horrible outcome to Verisign?
>
>I believe they have been desperate to change the status quo.  The
>value of being granted *.com presumptively for eternity

As a practical matter, they have had that grant for some years.  The real 
effect of the contract revision was to reduce their "hassle factor" from 
challenges for awhile.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html